I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

[thaiboxerken]

Quote from you, page 5. "...for my own....health." Your words

I was just being ridiculous, just like you are with the ETS claims.


And please show me where that EPA information is based on a fraudulent study.

How many links do I have to give you?!

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

The Congressional Research Service report.

Check it out for yourself. Its conclusion about the validity of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) causing lung cancer is that there is no proof, from the studies done, that it can cause lung cancer. If there are doubts raised in the report, it states that it needs further investigation.

 

[Nigel]

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/smoke/ets.html

It takes 20 years or more for damage to manifest itself in a smoker. ETS is hundreds of times more dilute than mainstream smoke. Non smokers would have to live with ETS for upwards of 2,000 years to incur the same damage.

Hardly an objective source, now is it?

My message is a warning to all God-fearing, truth-seeking, freedom-loving patriots

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/smoke/about.html

I swear I have a masochistic streak in me, because I keep responding to your crap. Twice I've done the right thing and walked away from you. Listen, you do whatever you want. I'm beyond caring, and I'm beyond listening to you. And if I want objective information, I'm certainly not going to ask you for it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And if I want objective information, I'm certainly not going to ask you for it.

You don't want objective facts, you just want to believe that secondhand smoke is a health hazard, despite the fact that there is NO evidence to support your beliefs.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

From Fox News, this is written by Steve Milloy, a skeptic scientist. He is an expert on junk-science:

Secondhand smoke is annoying to many nonsmokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie - the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of nonsmokers to be free of tobacco smoke.



Read the article, Steve debunks most, if not all of the EPA article on secondhand smoke.

 

[Segnosaur]

I would agree, ONLY if second hand smoke was shown to be dangerous. Right now, it is not shown to serve any "greater good" to anyone but the anti-smokers.

While I do agree that the disease risks (in particular of cancer) have been overstated by the anti-smoking side, I'm not totally convinced that second hand smoke has no detrimental effects. Even if the results are not "statistically" significant, if second hand smoke were to cause even a small number of deaths I would be concerned.

Remember, there is a lot of different chemicals in second hand smoke. We're still not 100% sure of how all those chemicals react in the human body even in small amounts. Different people will have different sensitivities, etc.

(Keep in mind that this is not a case of some 'quack medicine' like homeopathy where people claim there is an effect even though there's no logical reason why there should be one. We know chemicals in cigarettes are dangerous, and that second hand smoke contains those chemicals; we just don't know the overall effect of low doses.)

I wouldn't classify the infringement as minor at all, believe it or not, some people actually go to bars for the purpose of smoking and drinking.

Perhaps, but others may want to go to a bar and drink without smoking, and without the desire to be subjected to second hand smoke.

Personally, I don't see the rights of the smoker being infringed at all. They are still free to smoke in their own home, their car, most places outside, etc. The only one who really has a claim that their rights are being infringed is the bar or restaurant owner, and as I've stated before, people who operate businesses that cater to the public should expect to have certain restrictions placed on them.

I find it totally ridiculous for a non-smoker to go into a room full of smokers and demand that everyone put out their cigarettes.

The problem is, even if the non-smokers were in the majority, one smoker in a room full of non-smokers will expose everyone to their second hand smoke.

The image of a single non-smoker 'forcing' a room full of smokers to bend to their will is perhaps a powerful image, but its not really all that reflective of what is happening. The majority of people do not smoke, and given a choice most would not want to be associated with second hand smoke.

 

[Marian]

Nigel, I did some research (not actual personal research, I did lazy woman Google research ) on this issue awhile back when the Great Smoking Debate reared it's head last year on another board I frequent. I truly wish I had saved all the links (or that the way back machine had the thread from the other board).

Anyway, if you look around via google, you'll see that the 1993 EPA report is total crap. It's been shown to be worthless, and there are numerous sites that show that. Unfortunately the biggest problem is wading through all the sites which have agendas (for either side of the issue). Finding non-biased information was extremely difficult (when I looked for information previously...which is why I wish I had saved what I did find. :\)

Unfortunately the other problem is that many other sources base their information by projecting numbers based on the erronous 1993 EPA report.

Anyway you might find these two links interesting:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/diesel.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/apr99/doublex.htm

As to whether or not it's harmful, and if so to what degree...it hasn't been clearly demonstrated.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I too did the Google-dance and found loads of that biased stuff. I don't trust meta-studies or that EPA report either. I am willing to accept that I didn't find any studies that literally count the bodies caused by ETS.

But, I also didn't find any reason to assume that second hand smoke is safe. I know it's diluted, but diluted arsenic is still dangerous. Are you willing for me to contaminate your water tank while you do the research?

 

[Marian]

But, I also didn't find any reason to assume that second hand smoke is safe. I know it's diluted, but diluted arsenic is still dangerous. Are you willing for me to contaminate your water tank while you do the research?

The difference (and issue) being voluntary exposure. Smoking laws had an effect on businesses in CA. Unfortunately I have never been able to locate a 'formal' study (except for one half-assed study that was heavily biased pro-smoking which doesn't count), but for over 2 years after the passage, there were numerous articles in the LA Times as well as the local rag about bars going out of business, and blaming the smoking laws. Valid? I don't know, but it appeared to be to me. Resturants and bars are a tough business anyway, and many fail regardless. Still, I recall coverage of more than a few old businesses shutting down due to loss of revenue. One bar (I wish I could recall the name then I could find the article ) managed to stay open awhile because of a loophole which allowed smoking if you had no employees. So the owner and family members ran the business, until it was completely prohibited.

Anyway I personally think based on all the stuff I've read, that it's hardly a clear issue (regarding dangers). I've seen some studies that seem flawed that scream it's incredibly dangerous, and other studies which may be equally flawed which state there is no risk of statistical import.

I think most people can reasonably agree it's hardly clear. That being said, is it reasonable to legislate smoking bans which effect businesses when there is no clear medical indication to do so? I personally don't think so. And if studies do clearly show an extreme risk...then I'd also have to ask why parents wouldn't be charged with abuse for smoking in their home if they have children.

Again, because it's an issue of debate, I have no problems with smoking being prohibited in indoor areas where people have no option to leave/move/etc. Honestly you don't even have to present a harm argument in those cases, but they're not common. We do have a choice in most of what we do.

I don't like screaming children when I go out to eat, so I don't patronize Country Kitchen Buffets (I think the myth of hell was based on just such a scenario :x). I don't demand that people be tossed out of a resturant because their children are acting...well like children, even if it disrupts my meal. On airplanes it's even worse because you can't get away from the screaming and generally small children have some discomfort with the pressure so their ears may hurt. I don't demand that children not be allowed on flights, or that the airlines offer 'baby free' flights.

And actually I could make a health risk argument too, because stress can cause adverse health effects. However it's an asinine argument. I don't want to sound too cranky, but I get tired of people demanding that 'something be done' about things that they don't like, whether it's gay marriage or someone somewhere smoking. (And sorry to mix the two issues, to me it's a similar problem). People want to ceed personal responsibility for some 'paternal' like protection and it bugs me. Rather than take personal accountability, they want others to cater to them.

And let's assume that it ends up being proven that yes, secondhand smoke holds some health risks....how much of a health risk does it take for there to be a need for legislation? Think before you answer, because as much as I hate to appear to play the 'slippery slope' card, what other things demonstrate absolute health risks?

Driving. (I live in Southern CA, smog is a big deal here). Alcohol. (Not just for people who drink too much, but even mildly impaired drivers are a huge danger). Poor diets. (Not only does obesity cause major health problems for the individual, but their added health care costs effect everyone else). The list can go on. /shrug

Again, where people have no choice or options, sure, prohibit it. Otherwise it should be left up to individuals to make their own damn choices. Me personally? If it was demonstrated that it presented a serious health risk, morally I would choose to never smoke indoors again. And frankly I have tried to quit and will probably continue to try (though if it posed no health risk I'd keep smoking because I enjoy it. It does pose serious proven health risks for smokers though.) If or when I quit though, my opinion will remain the same, but I like being upfront about being a smoker when presenting my opinions.

As much as this will get kicked around though, I don't seriously expect the laws to change anytime soon. I think anti-smoking bans are probably here to stay for a long time.

 

[Nigel]

Marian, I'm with you on many points, and the link I provided earlier was one I found with only about a 2 minute search. I admit I hardly dug as deeply as I could have. I've state more than once since I got to these boards, my intention is to have a civil discussion, even if I disagree with someone. Perhaps I got more emotional than I should have due to thaiboxerken's attitude and behavior. I admit not all the results are in, and needs further study.

One thing I agree with is when you said we have to draw the line somewhere. There must be a balance between the gov't doing things for the common good (I can't test for my water - or make sure my pilot is certified, or ensure the bridge I cross is safe - I have to trust someone else to do that for me), and going too far (the Patriot Act - but that's another topic)

I don't know what the complete answer is, and I suspect most people who post on message boards don't either.

At any rate, even if I disagree with you, I've already come to respect your opinion - in the few messages I've read from you, you've come across as a very reasonable person.

So perhaps I'll do some serious research on this topic, and possibly revisit it in the future. In the meantime, I refuse to argue like children with people like thaiboxerken. I'm willing to agree to disagree on this particular topic.

 

[Marian]

Marian, I'm with you on many points, and the link I provided earlier was one I found with only about a 2 minute search. I admit I hardly dug as deeply as I could have.

You know the further I looked into it, the more confusing it becomes..at least to me. I don't want to get too off topic about flawed studies...but smokers aren't generally the healthiest people on the planet either. I'm sure not. And an entire household can be affected by what the primary meal maker chooses to make, how much exercise they're all doing etc. Generally families tend to exhibit the same habits when it comes to health, diet, exercise, etc. (Generally). So a study showing higher heart disease rates in the spouses of smokers may not be entirely credible, if it doesn't account for other enviromental factors.

And there's a *ton* of stuff like that. And neither side is immune from junk claims either, I've seen zealots on both sides of this issue peddling crap (not here, but people who have pro/anti websites with agendas). The only thing that seems clear to me, is that it's not cut and dry and both sides are able to pretty much destroy the data of the other side. And as such, well that's why I question the jump to legislation without enough to really warrent cause. At least in my opinion anyway. Moreso when its sold based on lies.

I've state more than once since I got to these boards, my intention is to have a civil discussion, even if I disagree with someone. Perhaps I got more emotional than I should have due to thaiboxerken's attitude and behavior. I admit not all the results are in, and needs further study.

SNIP

I don't know what the complete answer is, and I suspect most people who post on message boards don't either.

Couldn't agree more.

At any rate, even if I disagree with you, I've already come to respect your opinion - in the few messages I've read from you, you've come across as a very reasonable person.

So perhaps I'll do some serious research on this topic, and possibly revisit it in the future. In the meantime, I refuse to argue like children with people like thaiboxerken. I'm willing to agree to disagree on this particular topic.

Thanks I try. I can't lie and say I've never engaged in a personal attack on a board (especially since I play online gaming hehe) but when discussing issues like these, on forums like these, I personally prefer to stay civil and appreciate the same. I have my bitchy days though I'm sure.

I think the biggest steps forward are when people recognize that the EPA report was discredited (and all data extrapolated from that is then flawed) and look around, see even more flawed studies and conflicting reports...and start to demand real answers. I don't really want it to be so much MY way, as I just want to know what the facts are. And I don't believe any study has clearly demonstrated what that is. :\ If good studies come out (and are proven) clearly demonstrating serious risks and problems, I'm okay with being wrong, and more importantly I'll choose to take measures so that I don't expose people to smoke because of my moral beliefs. If there really isn't any harm...I think we need to know that too.

 

[thaiboxerken]

While I do agree that the disease risks (in particular of cancer) have been overstated by the anti-smoking side, I'm not totally convinced that second hand smoke has no detrimental effects. Even if the results are not "statistically" significant, if second hand smoke were to cause even a small number of deaths I would be concerned.

Has there been one case where secondhand smoke has been responsible? If it's statistically insignificant, then it's not a concern. Pet dander could cause harm to a person that is allergic, should we make pets illegal to have out in public?


Remember, there is a lot of different chemicals in second hand smoke. We're still not 100% sure of how all those chemicals react in the human body even in small amounts. Different people will have different sensitivities, etc.

That is an appeal to ignorance. Yes, we don't know. But we shouldn't legislate based on ignorance. It's my opinion that it should be legal because it's not demonstrated to be harmful to anyone but the smoker.

(Keep in mind that this is not a case of some 'quack medicine' like homeopathy where people claim there is an effect even though there's no logical reason why there should be one. We know chemicals in cigarettes are dangerous, and that second hand smoke contains those chemicals; we just don't know the overall effect of low doses.)

We're talking about homeopathic smoke here.


Perhaps, but others may want to go to a bar and drink without smoking, and without the desire to be subjected to second hand smoke.

Yes, and those people can go to smokeless bars.

Personally, I don't see the rights of the smoker being infringed at all. They are still free to smoke in their own home, their car, most places outside, etc.

Kind of like the Jewish people in WWII Germany were free to do whatever they wanted to, as long as they kept within their camps. Ok, I see.


The only one who really has a claim that their rights are being infringed is the bar or restaurant owner, and as I've stated before, people who operate businesses that cater to the public should expect to have certain restrictions placed on them.

Only if such behavior imposes a danger. Even if secondhand smoke was found dangerous, I think a sign stating those dangers should be good enough.


The problem is, even if the non-smokers were in the majority, one smoker in a room full of non-smokers will expose everyone to their second hand smoke.

Yes, but people in a bar know that they are going to get secondhand smoke in a smoking allowed bar. There is a choice to go to a nonsmoking bar.

The image of a single non-smoker 'forcing' a room full of smokers to bend to their will is perhaps a powerful image, but its not really all that reflective of what is happening. The majority of people do not smoke, and given a choice most would not want to be associated with second hand smoke.

And they don't have to, as I've stated many times.

 

[Segnosaur]

Has there been one case where secondhand smoke has been responsible?

No, and frankly, I don't think you know either.

If it's statistically insignificant, then it's not a concern.

It may not be a concern to you, but other people may differ.

What do you consider an 'acceptible' risk? One extra death in a thousand? One in 10 thousand? One in a million?

If we go back to my 'fire regulation' example, the number of people saved by forcing restaurants to have fire exits is statistically insignificant. (If you consider the millions of meals served in restaurants and the number of people who die in restaurant fires). Because the number is so insignificant, should we get rid of the need for fire exits?

Pet dander could cause harm to a person that is allergic, should we make pets illegal to have out in public?

Pets are already banned from many buildings and public transportation (at least where I'm from.)

That is an appeal to ignorance.

No, its an admission that at this point, science does not know everything.

We're talking about homeopathic smoke here.

Uhhh... no.

In homeopathy there is no actual chemical in the treatment.

If you go into a bar or restaurant that allows smoking, you will inhale chemicals that have detrimental effects on the human body. The question is whether the smaller amounts can cause harm.

Yes, and those people can go to smokeless bars.

They didn't exist (at least not where I was from).

I do consider it very strange that even though smokers were in the minority, restaurants and bars always felt it necessary to cater to the small numbers of smokers.

Kind of like the Jewish people in WWII Germany were free to do whatever they wanted to, as long as they kept within their camps. Ok, I see.

I invoke Godwin's law. Do I win?

Sorry, but attempts to link second hand smoke laws to the holocaust really do discredit to your arguments and make you appear a little looney.

(I'm not saying that you don't have valid points earlier in your post, its just your WW2-Jewish statement that I have issues with.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

Because the number is so insignificant, should we get rid of the need for fire exits?

No, because we know that fire is dangerous. We don't know if secondhand smoke is dangerous. Also, you can't seem to give 1 case of secondhand smoke being fatal.

What do you consider an 'acceptible' risk?

I think zero and 6 billion is an acceptible risk. Since secondhand smoke hasn't actually caused the death of any person, as far as we know, then it should not be a concern.

Pets are already banned from many buildings and public transportation (at least where I'm from.)

Except for service animals. Seems that something is wrong here. Also, the debate isn't about public buildings, but commercial businesses. Heck, some of the anti-smokers want people not to smoke outside as well.

No, its an admission that at this point, science does not know everything.

And we should not legislate based on that ignorance. You are appealing to ignorance, you are stating that because we cannot prove that secondhand smoke is safe, that it should be illegal. I am in the reasonable position that behaviors should be legal until they are shown to be a danger to others. I am defaulting to freedom, you are defaulting to ignorance.

The question is whether the smaller amounts can cause harm.

There is no evidence that suggests the amounts present in secondhand smoke will cause harm.

They didn't exist (at least not where I was from).

Then you could always open one.

do consider it very strange that even though smokers were in the minority, restaurants and bars always felt it necessary to cater to the small numbers of smokers.

It might be strange, but I think that restaurant owners should have the right to control their own business.

Sorry, but attempts to link second hand smoke laws to the holocaust really do discredit to your arguments and make you appear a little looney.

Style over substance. The point is that if you control where a behavior can take place just because a few people find it annoying, that is trampling on a freedom.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

We're talking about homeopathic smoke here.

That's balls and you know it. How did non-smokers come to have levels of cotinine which were 0.7% that of smokers?

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's balls and you know it. How did non-smokers come to have levels of cotinine which were 0.7% that of smokers?

Maybe they did, however, you haven't shown that such a low dosage is dangerous.

 

[Segnosaur]

Maybe they did, however, you haven't shown that such a low dosage is dangerous.

On the other hand, if his information is correct, then it debunks your 'homeopathic second-hand smoke' argument.

 

[Segnosaur]

No, because we know that fire is dangerous. We don't know if secondhand smoke is dangerous.

But do you think there is a possibility that it could be dangerous? Do you have some ability to know exactly how second hand smoke chemicals react with body tissues and can say with 100% certainty that the chemicals which DO kill people in regular smoke will have no effect at all on anyone under second hand smoke?

Also, you can't seem to give 1 case of secondhand smoke being fatal.

At this point, I'd say the number of people would would have their life span shortened by second hand smoke would be small. However, I don't have any way to test that.

I did notice something though... I read some of the links about the rejected EPA study that was used as the basis for the smoking ban... From what I gather, they combined the results of several studies, some of which showed health risks with smoking, others which showed no risk. The study was criticized for ignoring the studies which showed no risk in second hand smoke.

One thing I'm wondering though... If some studies showed a risk, and some showed no risk, then if second hand smoke were truely safe, then shouldn't there be at least some studies that show second hand smoke to be beneficial?

I think zero and 6 billion is an acceptible risk. Since secondhand smoke hasn't actually caused the death of any person, as far as we know, then it should not be a concern.

On one hand, you say that no risk is acceptable.

Then, you turn around and say there is no reason to believe that second hand smoke is a problem because of statistics.

Those are two different thresholds.

Please, pick one threshold and follow it. If you really believe that the only acceptable risk is zero in 6 billion, then you cannot use statistics as the sole determination of safety. You would have to show that the chemicals contained in second hand smoke are somehow inert in the body of non-smokers. A risk to the one person in a billion would not show up in statistics.

If your proof that second hand smoke is non-dangerous is based on statistics only, then you have to determine the statistical threshold (lets say 1%, just to pick a number), and say "I think a risk to 1% of the population is acceptable".

Except for service animals. Seems that something is wrong here.

What exactly are you saying is 'wrong'?

I'm not sure what the laws are, but I'm assuming that places like restaurants do have restrictions on non-service animals.

Also, the debate isn't about public buildings, but commercial businesses. Heck, some of the anti-smokers want people not to smoke outside as well.

I've already explained my reasoning about that.... commercial buildings that serve the public (such as restaurants and stores) are expected to follow regulations that a private home owner does not.

As for anti-smokers wanting people to stop people from smoking outside, I don't necessarily agree with them so I won't support their position, any more than you would support a smoker going into a non-smoking section of a restaurant and lighting up because he thinks its his 'right'.

If you are arguing about freedom to run an establishment any way you choose, then why aren't you arguing that restaurants should be able to block off fire exits if they want, as long as they put up a sign saying "our fire exit is blocked off" if they want?

No, its an admission that at this point, science does not know everything.

And we should not legislate based on that ignorance. You are appealing to ignorance, you are stating that because we cannot prove that secondhand smoke is safe, that it should be illegal. I am in the reasonable position that behaviors should be legal until they are shown to be a danger to others. I am defaulting to freedom, you are defaulting to ignorance.

Just because we have a difference of opinion, does not mean that you are the one with the "reasonable" position. Remember, at least some of your comments are easily shown to be wrong (such as your "homeopathic smoke" comment earlier.)

Of course, not everything that hasn't been proven to be safe can be assumed to be dangerous. But with second hand smoke, there's some reason to be suspicious, since many of the same chemicals which do cause death in smokers do appear in second hand smoke.

The question is whether the smaller amounts can cause harm.

There is no evidence that suggests the amounts present in secondhand smoke will cause harm.

Yet the whole basis of your argument is that statistical studies haven't shown a coorelation. Yet earlier you said that only a zero risk was acceptable, so even one death that was caused by second hand smoke wouldn't show up in your statistics, yet you would consider that death unacceptable.

do consider it very strange that even though smokers were in the minority, restaurants and bars always felt it necessary to cater to the small numbers of smokers.

It might be strange, but I think that restaurant owners should have the right to control their own business.

So, you'll support the right of restaurant owners who want to block off their fire exits because they want the right to control their own businesses? Or the right to ignore health codes because they don't want government interferience? As long as they post the appropriate warning signs everything's ok, right?

Sorry, but attempts to link second hand smoke laws to the holocaust really do discredit to your arguments and make you appear a little looney.

Style over substance. The point is that if you control where a behavior can take place just because a few people find it annoying, that is trampling on a freedom.

First of all, I never said it should be controlled because people find it annoying. I feel there is a possibility that there are health risks, while not statistically significant, may still be real.

Secondly, the argument that 'freedom' is being trampled on and linking it to the holocaust is using the 'slippery slope' argument. Trouble is, the slippry slope argument is not really a good way to "prove" anything?

(You know, I wonder how many actual survivors of concentration camps would like hearing their plight compared with that of smokers.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

On the other hand, if his information is correct, then it debunks your 'homeopathic second-hand smoke' argument.

It sure did, but that doesn't mean that those very low doses are harmful.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But do you think there is a possibility that it could be dangerous?

Sure, it could. So can driving a car.

Do you have some ability to know exactly how second hand smoke chemicals react with body tissues and can say with 100% certainty that the chemicals which DO kill people in regular smoke will have no effect at all on anyone under second hand smoke?

Nope, but it's upon the anti-smokers to give some evidence that secondhand smoke is dangerous. With as many smokers as there are in the world, there should be some evidence of it being dangerous, if it truly were.

At this point, I'd say the number of people would would have their life span shortened by second hand smoke would be small. However, I don't have any way to test that.

Yes, and some mediums might talk to the dead at random times. I don't have any way to test that. You are making a claim and then giving an excuse for a lack of evidence all in one breath.

One thing I'm wondering though... If some studies showed a risk, and some showed no risk, then if second hand smoke were truely safe, then shouldn't there be at least some studies that show second hand smoke to be beneficial?

That makes absolutely no sense. Just because a substance isn't shown to be beneficial doesn't mean that it is dangerous. It is more likely in the middle ground, the inert area.

On one hand, you say that no risk is acceptable.

False, my statement is more one that asserts that no risk has been shown.

If your proof that second hand smoke is non-dangerous is based on statistics only, then you have to determine the statistical threshold (lets say 1%, just to pick a number), and say "I think a risk to 1% of the population is acceptable".

False, if the statistics show insignificant results, that means we really don't know what that statistical threshold is. They are unreliable as a source of information at that point. The 1 in 1000 or 10000 in the few studies could simply be an anomoly or an error. It is up to scientists to determine what is a significant result, not you or I.

I'm not sure what the laws are, but I'm assuming that places like restaurants do have restrictions on non-service animals.

But not on service animals. I guess it's ok to endanger people if you have a seeing eye dog. Really, the cat dander example was a poor one. I'll change my anology to cologne. Some people are allergic to cologne, should there be legislation against the wearing of cologne because of this?

I've already explained my reasoning about that.... commercial buildings that serve the public (such as restaurants and stores) are expected to follow regulations that a private home owner does not.

Yes, you have explained. I don't agree. As long as the public knows what they are getting into, then the owner should be free to allow smoking in his restaurant. It's as simple as that.

If you are arguing about freedom to run an establishment any way you choose, then why aren't you arguing that restaurants should be able to block off fire exits if they want, as long as they put up a sign saying "our fire exit is blocked off" if they want?

I think that would be completely appropriate for an owner to do.

But with second hand smoke, there's some reason to be suspicious, since many of the same chemicals which do cause death in smokers do appear in second hand smoke.

Only to those that don't understand that it's dosage that really matters.

So, you'll support the right of restaurant owners who want to block off their fire exits because they want the right to control their own businesses? Or the right to ignore health codes because they don't want government interferience? As long as they post the appropriate warning signs everything's ok, right?

Yes I would. If a restaurant owner puts up a sign that says "we serve dog poop and eating it will cause sickness", then I feel that dog poop can be on the menu and served.

I feel there is a possibility that there are health risks, while not statistically significant, may still be real.

I think that if it's statistically insignificant, then chances are that it's not real.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

In the absence of conclusive studies either way:

Smoke is known to be dangerous
+
No reason to assume that low doses are safe
=
Since second hand smoke is still smoke, it's reasonable to assume that it is also dangerous

That should be the safe standpoint until a threshold is found.